posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 03:31 AM
Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by Gridrebel
The question is really how long-term is the sinking of the ground under the reactor. I mean, if the geologists see no end in sight, then it's a
futile effort to try to mitigate the effects of the decrease at this point. But if they see it as slowing and potentially reaching a maximum low
point, then grouting can take place to reinforce the concrete floor of the containment area. There are engineering ways to remediate this IF the
ground subsidence is considered a temporary phenomenon.
First, the article claims that there is little chance the subsidence will slow down much less stop due to the soft nature of the underlying bedrock.
So what does that leave us? I was a maintenance and manufacturing engineer for a rather large company with plants in four states. We had five
divisions of the company on the Georgia campus. One of these was the Elastomer division that compounded the rubber products used in the rest of the
plants. Rubber is compounded in a couple of types of machinery. We had one type, a two roll mill, in the corner of the Elastomer building nearest to a
deep retention pond. One day on my rounds I noticed that I could get a really good foot massage by standing on the concrete floor behind the mill.
Obviously, something was wrong and the concrete floor was losing support from the ground under it. I had to determine which of the three possible
causes was responsible. The three ways this could have happened were washout, compaction and subsidence. Washout and compaction were the easiest to
repair by simply doing a high pressure mud jacking with the additional step of finding and stopping the water source if it was a washout. Fortunately
the problem turned out to be compaction and the mud jacking worked just fine.
But if the problem had been subsidence it would have been a whole new ballgame. On flat land it would have been necessary to drive pilings deep enough
to support the weight of the building. But since the building was on the edge of a steep slope it would have been necessary to use soil augers screwed
horizontally into the side of the slope to stabilize it with the possibility of some vertical pilings being necessary too. Both would have been very
expensive and time consuming tasks.
Now, as to the situation in Japan; the descriptions I have read in some of the linked articles would rule out either of these approaches being
effective. From the description of the bedrock being too soft it would seem to be nearly impossible to stabilize the building with pilings. And that
assumes that they could even get close enough to the building for long enough to do it because of the high radiation levels.
As for the radiation threat...
Building four has only about 1500 spent fuel rods in it's cooling pool. While the melt down and burning of that many would be pretty serious it pales
in comparison to the 14,225 fuel rods total on the site. If building four goes they won't be able to get people close enough to the site to maintain
the cooling pools in the rest of the buildings. That means that eventually the entire 14,225 fuel rods would also melt down and burn.
I don't personally know if the estimates of total radiation released and the effect it would have on the rest of the world are accurate but more than
one expert has described it as a TEOTWAWKI event (The End Of The World As We Know It).
So it is starting to look more and more like TPTB will get their monies worth from all those underground survival bunkers they are supposed to be